Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

16

The Show / Re: dollar plunging against gold

« on: August 23, 2011, 10:53:14 AM »

They should give the current price of gold and silver on the show, to alert people about how much the dollar is plunging.

If they really cared, they'd look it up, but announcing it on the show would help people who didn't care enough to check. Right now it's at 1823 USD per troy ounce. The dollar has lost over 98 percent of the value it had when Nixon closed the gold window at 35 USD per troy ounce.

I've read recently that it lost around 75% since Nixon, and 98% since the Fed was created in 1913. Whichever version is right doesn't really matter.

A year ago I bought the GLD and SLV exchange-traded funds, and also a fund of gold mining stocks within my IRA. They have done well, obviously. It's a lot of money, but only 10% of my total portfolio so even if they drop in half it won't change my life any.

Last week, for the first time, I bought a 1/10 oz. gold coin and two one-ounce bars of silver. They're kinda cool to have, and I plan to buy more.

17

General / Re: How did freedom ever screw things up?

« on: August 22, 2011, 09:34:03 PM »

I have no master plan, but I do have ideas. I'm only trying to get people to understand that freedom causes weakening and imbalance, and leads to nowhere, because it doesn't really exist in the first place. Why do you think the media is always pumping this "They're fighting to protect our freedom BS all the time, on every station? We're not free, and never have been.

How did freedom ever screw things up? How about NAFTA and GATT? Corporations were given the freedom (government regulations removed) to set up factories across the borders and over seas, for cheap labor with no tariffs. "Freedom", cost us a trainload of jobs! So now that we've embraced corporate freedom, we've now all become salves to cheap labor. So you can see right here a perfect example of how freedom is a contradiction - Whenever you free yourself from one thing, you almost always become a slave to something else.

Or - How about lets free corporations to give unlimited campaign funds to elections. So now that we've freed corporations, we now have become a slave to, and have no say anymore in our own government.

Need I go on?

Once you see yourself in the world as a free individual and not as a collective, you weaken your position, because corporations, and governments, and political parties, are COLLECTIVES, and a collective is much more powerful than a "me generation" individual. We need to strive more to form collectives instead of worrying about our individual freedoms so much.

I'll continue later, there's a girl sitting across from me with a low cut top, and an incredible set of knockers and I can't concentrate anymore.

You will never understand any of this until you realize that government and freedom cannot co-exist. They are polar opposites.

18

General / Re: Think Free Unresticted Capitalism is the Answer?

« on: August 21, 2011, 05:29:41 PM »

FWIW: My un-educated definition of "capitalism" (economic freedom) is:

When two parties agree to a mutual exchange of money for goods or services, free of 3rd party interferences. "Money" can include whatever the parties agree to: paper money, gold, silver, guns, heroin, collectibles, etc. Bartering would also be included.

If you think about it, there is nothing any third party (government, etc.) can do to improve upon the free exchange as described above.

19

The Show / Re: Activism for it's own sake is silly.

« on: August 05, 2011, 08:22:06 PM »

If people are not angry enough to stand up at this point they never will be. Jailed liberty activist are helping no one. Cops have gotten away with murder many times now, even children getting needlessly shot or arrested. Politicians couldn't be more blatant with their arrogant evil then they are now. The sheeple don't care. The statists are holding all the cards, so we need to change the game or better yet, quite playing.

I agree with everything you said; in fact, I feel like I'm reading my own post!

I'll be 61 in a couple of weeks, and I have seen a gradual increase in state power for as long as I can remember, and a rapid increase since 9/11.

I railed against seat belt laws here in NYS when they passed them sometime in the '80s. I finally got a ticket about 10 years ago, and I told myself that no way in hell will the state get another penny out of me for not wearing a seatbelt, so I wore it except at night when cops couldn't tell. I felt like at least I was resisting to some degree. Then I started wearing it all the time.

Younger people do not feel this infringement on liberty because the seatbelt law was in place before they were born. This is true of many other laws also.

As James Madison said: "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

It was true then and is true today. It is human nature to "go along."

I watch Judge Napalitano's show every night. He is the best liberty lover on national media that I'm aware of. But his daily obsession with the Constitution seems a bit silly to me. It's just another irrelevant piece of paper. Pointing out that this or that law is unconstitutional is just a big waste of time, it seems to me.

I don't see any way of turning this ship around. We are rotting from within, similar to the Roman Empire. Endless wars, debasing the currency to pay for them, widespread corruption throughout society, people are obsessed with hedonism, materialism, are rude, inconsiderate to others -- yet are ignorant about liberty and don't even seem to care about it.

Most people think that as long as they can go to the mall, a ball game, car race, concert, have tons of food available, can drive here or there, they are "free."

History is marching on and IMO Western civilization, as we know it, is on its way out. I won't be around in 50 years, but I'd bet my last dollar that it will be a very different world then. The "canaries in the coal mine" are warning about it, and if human history is a lesson then there is nothing anyone -- nor any group -- can do to reverse it.

20

General / Re: Freedom-Kitty

« on: July 29, 2011, 06:31:50 PM »

Link?

21

General / Re: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

« on: July 29, 2011, 03:28:46 AM »

This is all great news, but it will take years or even decades to discredit the enviro movement.

After the email scandal over a year ago, when the phoniness of the movement was on display for the whole world to see, it hasn't made much difference. The movement still has a lot of power and credibility with way too many people.

22

General / Re: Terrorism in Oslo Norway

« on: July 24, 2011, 12:17:18 AM »

From Lew Rockwell's blog:

Is the Norwegian Terrorist a Neocon?
Posted by Lew Rockwell on July 23, 2011 07:30 PM

The alleged mass murderer, instead of being fanatically pro-Muslim and anti-West, turns out to be fanatically anti-Muslim and pro-West (and pro-Israel). Indeed, his fevered brain was much influenced by such neocons as Richard Pipes. The children who were massacred had held a pro-Palestinian rally the day before, and the Norwegian government planned to recognize Palestine and get out of Libya, both acts eliciting the hatred of such as he. As to his religion, it is not exactly traditionally Christian, though he may be some sort of Christianist. (Thanks to Ralph Raico and Gary North)

23

General / Re: Radio Shows

« on: July 23, 2011, 04:16:21 PM »

Which radio shows do you listen to?

Why do you listen to the radio show (news, humor, host, pop culture)?

What percentage of the time do you agree with the host/hosts (100%,75%,50%)?

I listen to Limbaugh, only because he's pretty good on economics and great at bashing liberals. But I had to turn him off from '04 til Obama won in '08. When a Repub is in the Oval Office, especially when he is invading sovereign nations and passing oppressive legislation like the Patriot Act, free drugs for seniors, etc. I cannot stand listening to him rationalize and defend the president in every move he makes.

Unfortunately for him, he only sees half the problem. Maybe if he untied the other half of his brain he would see that the GOP is every bit as threatening to liberties as the Democrats.

I usually catch an hour or two of FTL most nights. I agree nearly 100% with their politics. The only thing I disagree about is they seem to let a lot of callers ramble on with BORING FUCKING stories that you can predict where they're going. Come on guys, cut these guys off at the knees; you are allowing them to drag an otherwise great show down.

In the mornings I listen to a local "shock jock," a Stern wannabe, who is mildly entertaining, and does a lot of local stuff. But he is a flaming liberal and when he talks politics I find myself yelling at the radio. Haha, not really, I'm too old to get upset anymore.

24

The Show / Friday June 10 and Michelle . . .

« on: June 11, 2011, 09:42:49 PM »

She said, in response to a caller who was citing the constitution, that she doesn't get her freedoms from the constitution.

Neither does anyone else, as the male host more or less pointed out.

Obviously, the American experiment in freedom has been a massive failure. We now know that no government can be restrained by a piece of paper.

However, the founders (some of them, at least) believed at the time that the government they were setting up was to protect liberties. The constitution, and more specifically the Bill of Rights, does not grant freedoms as Michelle seems to think. If you actually read it, it was supposed to be a restriction on the government's powers. As a Supreme Court case stated some 30 years ago, the B of R is a "charter of negative liberties."

"Congress shall make no law . . . "

"Shall not be infringed . . . "

"The right of the people to be secure . . . "

etc., etc.

It does not grant freedoms, but instead orders the government to recognize -- and not infringe upon -- those inherent freedoms.

If one reads the writing of the founders, they believed that rights, endowed by our Creator, apply to ALL HUMAN BEINGS, regardless of where they happened to be born. All humans were entitled to be free, but some men (governments) would interfere with those rights, and America was to be a place to escape to where government would protect those rights.

As we now know it didn't work in practice, but the ideas were sound. The constitution does not grant rights, as anyone knows who has actually read it.

25

General / Re: Bitcoin

« on: June 11, 2011, 08:55:17 PM »

I read the first few pages of this thread, and have read about bitcoins on their own website as hawked by Mark and Ian and have read the Wiki article on them, but have yet to see any explanation on how any real value is, or can be, attached to them.

Forget about the gubmint cracking the codes, or shutting down the internet to stop it, yadda yadda yadda, as I see it, they are like any other fiat currency -- they are created out of thin air and have no intrinsic value.

26

General / Re: Ron Paul won't beat Obama because Americans will get afraid

« on: May 07, 2011, 10:40:53 AM »

No need to get huffy.

Why not just address my points instead?

I did. Better and more clearly than they it deserved.

I changed "racist" to bigot.

My work is done in that arena.

Accusing a well known market anarchist moderator with many thousands of posts backing his obviously non PC views of PC behavior is gonna get you some backlash.

Ron Paul said "Get the blacks off of welfare." - Not "Get rid of welfare." or "Get rid of the welfare state." or "Help create jerbs for poor people." or "Help poor people make better lives for themselves."

"The blacks."

As if "The blacks" are the subject. The dude said a stupid thing. Call it whatever you want. I'm not being politically correct to point out that it is a stupid thing to say and that it looks bad.

It's a stupid fucking thing to say, no different than "We need to get The Jews more work in Hollywood." or "We need to get driver's training for the Asians." or "Let's crack down on Italian crime."

Well now we're getting somewhere.

First, I highly doubt that RP actually said that. I can't even imagine him thinking it. But I suppose "I heard it on the internet so it must be true" prevails.

But even if he did say it, how does the desire to get blacks to be financially independent equate to a feeling of racial superiority?

If he said "I want to get people off of welfare," (which he probably HAS said), I'm assuming that would NOT be racist, but substituting the word "people" with "black" is racist? How so?

Is it racist to point out that blacks are typically superior to whites in sports? Actually, you are admitting that blacks are genetically superior to you -- the opposite of racism.

So what is a "bigot"? Anyone who disagrees with you?

So stop being fucking stupid already.

Thanks for being a gentleman about this.

27

General / Re: Ron Paul won't beat Obama because Americans will get afraid

« on: May 07, 2011, 09:54:36 AM »

Haha, I didn't think this forum would be a bastion of politically-correct speech, but apparently it is. You must be young enough to have been taught it via government schools, and/or you subconsciously absorbed by the politically-correct culture.

Don't be a fucking moron, ya fuckin' moron.

"Racism" is the belief that one race is inherently superior over another, so again, how could Paul's alleged statement be considered racist?

Let's use a better term then, shall we? Fucking bigot. Ron Paul is a fucking ignorant bigot. How's that?

Is it racist to say you don't like Obama?

Don't be fucking stupid.

Is it racist to say you don't like Obama's beliefs and policies?

Don't be fucking stupid.

Is it racist to say you avoid urban areas because of the crime?

Don't be fucking stupid.

Is it racist to say you prefer white jelly beans over black jelly beans?

Don't be fucking stupid.

Where am I, in Rachael Maddow's forum? LOL.

Apparently you don't know how not to be fucking stupid.

"When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty."  -- Confucius[/b][/color] (it was true 2,500 years ago, and it is true today)

:Rollseyes:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflate

Now why don't you go vote and pretend that supporting government is the way to be free.

I did it. I fed the troll. Hooray.

No need to get huffy.

Why not just address my points instead?

28

General / Re: Ron Paul won't beat Obama because Americans will get afraid

« on: May 07, 2011, 09:40:49 AM »

How is that statement racist?

Now if he said "We need to get the blacks off welfare so the whites can have more", I'd be in your camp. As it is, I dont see what he said as being a big deal.

*Sigh*

Seriously?

*Slowly backs away*

Haha, I didn't think this forum would be a bastion of politically-correct speech, but apparently it is. You must be young enough to have been taught it via government schools, and/or you subconsciously absorbed by the politically-correct culture.

"Racism" is the belief that one race is inherently superior over another, so again, how could Paul's alleged statement be considered racist?

Is it racist to say you don't like Obama?

Is it racist to say you don't like Obama's beliefs and policies?

Is it racist to say you avoid urban areas because of the crime?

Is it racist to say you prefer white jelly beans over black jelly beans?

Where am I, in Rachael Maddow's forum? LOL.

"When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty."  -- Confucius (it was true 2,500 years ago, and it is true today)

29

General / Re: Ron Paul won't beat Obama because Americans will get afraid

« on: May 07, 2011, 08:24:00 AM »

And if he'd said "We need to get rid of the welfare state." He'd have been my fucking hero rather than a cranky racist old white man.

"Well, what we really need to do is get the blacks off of welfare." - Ron Paul

How is that statement racist?

30

General / Re: Ron Paul won't beat Obama because Americans will get afraid

« on: May 06, 2011, 10:52:16 PM »

I totally get that if you're still a sucker and believe you can change the system by being part of the system he'd probably be the best person to vote for, but it's a sucker's game.

If you participate you've lost. Ron Paul won't save you. Rand Paul won't save you. X won't save you. PROTIP- A politician won't save you.

I have not voted since 2000. I refuse to give the system legitimacy by participating.

Since then I have just been an avid observer and commentator of the folly of government, and feel much better for it. It was like taking a huge weight off my shoulders.

You are right of course, Ron Paul, nor anyone else can "save" the nation. None the less, I will take less government -- or even less growth -- if offered.